A Simple Proof Of Bell's Theorem


by alt
Tags: bell, proof, simple, theorem
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#19
Jul28-10, 01:25 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by ThomasT
So, you think that most physicists would say that nature is not evolving according to local and discoverable underlying dynamics?[
Quote Quote by JesseM
Yes, virtually all of them would say this.
I think that you're wrong about this. So, unless you have some survey or poll of all physicists to back up your claim, then I guess that we can just disagree about this

Quote Quote by JesseM
Why do you have an 0.5 in front of cos^2 (a-b)?
Why are you even asking this? This is what I mean by obfuscation. Obviously, if you have a source emitting randomly polarized photons, then if you place a polarizer between the emitter and the detector, then the coeffiicient of transmission with the polarizer is 1/2 the photon flux without the polarizer.

Quote Quote by JesseM
I'm not sure of the exact "original setup" you're thinking of ...
It was clear enough.

Quote Quote by JesseM
... but if the photons are entangled in such a way that identical measurements on each will yield the same results with probability 1, then if both polarizers are at the same angle so a-b=0, then the probability of getting the same result (either both passing through the polarizers, or both being reflected) should be cos^2(0) = 1, not 0.5 cos^2(0) = 0.5.
Don't be ridiculous. And unnecessarily obfuscating. The addition of a single polarizer between the emitter and the detector cuts the photon flux by 1/2.

Quote Quote by JesseM
Assuming you should have written cos^2 (a-b) for the original setup, your altered setup above will not give the same results.
The prediction for the original setup will be .5cos^2|a-b| in the ideal. The altered setup, the polariscopic setup, will give the same results.

Quote Quote by ThomasT
But Herbert, vis Bell, requires that the polarimeter produce a linear relationship between |a-b| and rate of detection.
Quote Quote by ThomasT
This is why I said that light was being required by Herbert, vis Bell, to behave in a way contrary to what thousands of polarimetric experiments have shown.
Here's what you've failed to address so far. Bell and Herbert say that the number of mismatches at 30 degrees (a-b) plus the number of mismatches at 30 degrees should be less than or equal to the number of mismatches at 60 degrees. But, according to Malus Law the number of mismatches at 60 degrees should be greater than the number of mismatches at 30 degrees + the number of mismatches at 30 degrees. So, what you and Bell and Herbert are saying is contrary to 200 years of applied optics.

Of course, there's the possibility that OPTICAL Bell tests have nothing to do with OPTICS (per DrChinese et al.), but I think that that's just clutching at straws.

Quote Quote by JesseM
If there is some specific thing you have a question about we can discuss it, but I don't really feel like going through a detailed analysis of everything in those papers.
Nor do I. In fact, I'm quite saturated with this topic for now and am quite amenable to letting it go for a while. I thank you for your detailed responses. And perhaps we will discuss this in future threads.
DrChinese
DrChinese is offline
#20
Jul28-10, 09:14 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,147
Quote Quote by Loren Booda View Post
Paraphrased from Nick Herbert's book Quantum Reality, the following (borrowed from the OP's http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html) is the best (simplest) account I have found to date for the Bell inequality (SPOT stands for Single Photon Orientation Tester):

...

Just beautiful.
Thanks for sharing that! You are right, it is simple and beautiful!!
JesseM
JesseM is offline
#21
Jul28-10, 10:41 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 8,470
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think that you're wrong about this. So, unless you have some survey or poll of all physicists to back up your claim, then I guess that we can just disagree about this
Did you try the experiment I suggested of searching for "bell's theorem" plus "inequality" on google books? Like I said before, "would you disagree that if physics textbooks all present some theoretical conclusion as a fact, then it's a safe bet that this conclusion is one that the majority of physicists would agree with?"

And again, do a little self-reflection, do you really believe that as an amateur who has made no formal study of physics, you really have a rational basis for being confident that I (and DrChinese and RUTA and others) are wrong about the typical beliefs of physicists? You have cited only two papers with significant overlap in authorship, do you think that's enough to justify the conclusion that a significant fraction of the physics community disagrees with Bell's conclusions? Given how strongly you seem to want Bell's theorem to be wrong, do you think you are immune to effects like confirmation bias, not to mention the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Quote Quote by ThomasT
Why are you even asking this? This is what I mean by obfuscation.
Please stop leaping to such mean-spirited conclusions, my questions are completely genuine.
Quote Quote by ThomasT
Obviously, if you have a source emitting randomly polarized photons, then if you place a polarizer between the emitter and the detector, then the coeffiicient of transmission with the polarizer is 1/2 the photon flux without the polarizer.
To help explain my confusion, note that we aren't talking about the photon flux at an individual source, we're talking about the coincidence rate for two detectors at different locations A and B--you said "And the coincidence rate, ie. F(AB), is the same as with the original setup, .5 cos^2 |a-b|, in the ideal." In the "original setup" of the Bell test I was familiar with, when the polarizers were set to the same angle, then if there was a detection at A there'd be a probability of 1 that you'd also see a detection at B. I thought that would mean a "coincidence rate" of 1 as well. However, in the past I've normally only looked at the theoretical side of Bell's theorem and not the experimental side, so it seems like I've actually misunderstood what the "coincidence rate" equations are giving us. Looking at this paper, the author writes on p. 3:
R(a,b) is the rate of coincidences with polarizer I in orientation a and polarizer II in orientation b ... and R0 is the coincidence rate with the two polarizers removed.
From a theoretical perspective it may be natural to think of coincidences just in terms of the probability that both members of the pair will respond the same way to the polarizers (which is how I was thinking of it, and some explanations of Bell's theorem do involve this sort of probability), but if they give R0 as the "coincidence rate with the two polarizers removed" that's presumably not what they're talking about since with no polarizers to block out the photons, efficient detectors would always detect both members of the pair with probability 1. Instead it seems that they are actually talking about a "rate" at which photons are being detected in time, like 6 photons/second or something. So in this case, the "coincidence rate" with polarizers at the same angle would naturally be half of R0, in spite of the fact that anytime an entangled photon makes it through polarizer A, its entangled twin is guaranteed to make it through polarizer B with probability 1. So if we want to know the coincidence rate expressed as a fraction of R0, the rate with no polarizers in place, it would indeed be 0.5 cos^2 (a-b).

So, sorry about the mistake, but there was really no need to accuse me of obfuscation since my confusion was genuine. And in my defense, I don't think there is perfect uniformity in how different authors use the phrase "coincidence rate", for example this page says:
Suppose, for example, that we misalign the angles of the two polarization filters so that the angle between the polarization directions of the two filters is a=a1-a2. We measure the coincidence rate R(a), as compared to the rate Ro when the filters are perfectly aligned.

...

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, predicts that the coincidence rate R(a1,a2) depends only on the relative angle a=a1-a2 between the two polarization directions, and that R(a) obeys Malus' Law. In other words, quantum mechanics predicts that R(a1,a2)=R(a)=RoCos2(a).
So here the equation does not include any term giving the coincidence rate when the filters are removed, in front of cos^2 it puts Ro, the rate when they are in place at the same angle. And presumably this would be a literal rate of photons/second, not a dimensionless 0.5.

Anyway, with the understanding that we're looking at the coincidence rate with polarizers at angles a and b expressed as a fraction of the rate of detection with no polarizers in place, I agree that your setup--where photons going towards A meet no polarizers, while photons going towards B encounter two polarizers at angles a and b in succession--will indeed yield the same coincidence rate as with the normal setup where the photon going towards B encounters a polarizer at angle b while the photon going towards A encounters a polarizer at angle a. However, the crucial point is that your setup does not meet the experimental conditions specified by Bell, which include the fact that there must be a spacelike separation between the random choice of angle a for the polarizer that photon #1 encounters and the event of photon #2 encountering the other polarizer at angle b. This spacelike separation is crucial, because in a local universe it means there can be no causal influence between the choice of angle a and the event of the photon either passing through or being reflected by b. This is why it would be quite possible to reproduce the 0.5 cos^2 (a-b) relationship you describe using classical optics (you'd just need a detector that gave a binary yes/no result depending on whether the light that reached it was above a certain threshold), but it would be impossible to reproduce the 0.5 cos^2 (a-b) relationship in a classical optics experiment that actually satisfied Bell's experimental conditions, including the part about the spacelike separation.

And this is why the following argument is just a giant strawman:
Quote Quote by ThomasT
Here's what you've failed to address so far. Bell and Herbert say that the number of mismatches at 30 degrees (a-b) plus the number of mismatches at 30 degrees should be less than or equal to the number of mismatches at 60 degrees.
Yes, for the specific experimental setup described under the assumption of local realism, not for any arbitrary experimental setup that doesn't match the one they assumed.
Quote Quote by ThomasT
But, according to Malus Law the number of mismatches at 60 degrees should be greater than the number of mismatches at 30 degrees + the number of mismatches at 30 degrees.
No, the classical Malus' law does not predict this, not in the setup that Bell and Herbert described. The fact that you can find a completely different setup where the classical Malus' law does predict mismatches at 60 is greater than the sum of mismatches at 30 is just a strawman argument, since Bell never argued that his inequalities should apply in any experiments other than ones meeting the conditions he specified. Since classical electromagnetism is a local realist theory, it would indeed be impossible to replicate the 0.5 cos^2 (a-b) in a classical optics experiment that actually matched Bell's setup.
DrChinese
DrChinese is offline
#22
Jul29-10, 01:38 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,147
OK, how about this one:


1. Take 2 classical sets of binary observables that are uncorrelated. Say, 2 stacks of 100 coins which were randomly flipped to H or T and then paired. One stack is Alice, the other is Bob. About 50 pairs will match (ideal case), about 50 will mismatch, so 0 net correlation.
2. Find a 3rd set which has this property: it is equally correlated to Alice and Bob (in the ideal case, ignore if off by 1). There should be such a set.
3. What is the correlation of that set to Alice and Bob? Classically, it MUST be exactly .5 (within some confidence level related to sample size). Because the midpoint of 100% matches and 50% matches is 75% matches, which is a correlation of 50% (75% matches less 25% mismatches).
4. However, in the quantum version of this (PDC Type I entangled photon pairs), the correlation is more like .7 (85% matches less 15% mismatches). Imagine Alice and Bob at 0 and 45 degrees. They will not be correlated at all. But their midpoint, 22.5 degrees, is 70% correlated (85% matched) to Alice AND 70% correlated (85% matched) to Bob. That's impossible with any classical set; ergo there is no classical set.

Or look at it from the other perspective:

1. I have 100 tossed coins (data values for a set at 22.5 degrees). Is it possible to obtain 2 different sets by turning over 15 coins from each set so that those new sets (Alice and Bob) are maximally different? Certainly, but how different can they be? Classically and quantum mechancially, you get different answers!
2. Classically, you will have sets that are no more than 30% different (15 changed in Alice + 15 changed in Bob out of 100 original).
3. In the QM world: When Alice is 0 degrees and Bob is 45 degrees (the farthest points where they are 15% different than the starting point of 22.5 degrees), well, those points are completely uncorrelated with each other (i.e. 50% different). Ergo, there are no classical datasets which have this simple observed property: 15%+15%=50%.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#23
Jul30-10, 04:31 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by DrChinese View Post
OK, how about this one:


1. Take 2 classical sets of binary observables that are uncorrelated. Say, 2 stacks of 100 coins which were randomly flipped to H or T and then paired. One stack is Alice, the other is Bob. About 50 pairs will match (ideal case), about 50 will mismatch, so 0 net correlation.
2. Find a 3rd set which has this property: it is equally correlated to Alice and Bob (in the ideal case, ignore if off by 1). There should be such a set.
3. What is the correlation of that set to Alice and Bob? Classically, it MUST be exactly .5 (within some confidence level related to sample size). Because the midpoint of 100% matches and 50% matches is 75% matches, which is a correlation of 50% (75% matches less 25% mismatches).
4. However, in the quantum version of this (PDC Type I entangled photon pairs), the correlation is more like .7 (85% matches less 15% mismatches). Imagine Alice and Bob at 0 and 45 degrees. They will not be correlated at all. But their midpoint, 22.5 degrees, is 70% correlated (85% matched) to Alice AND 70% correlated (85% matched) to Bob. That's impossible with any classical set; ergo there is no classical set.

Or look at it from the other perspective:

1. I have 100 tossed coins (data values for a set at 22.5 degrees). Is it possible to obtain 2 different sets by turning over 15 coins from each set so that those new sets (Alice and Bob) are maximally different? Certainly, but how different can they be? Classically and quantum mechancially, you get different answers!
2. Classically, you will have sets that are no more than 30% different (15 changed in Alice + 15 changed in Bob out of 100 original).
3. In the QM world: When Alice is 0 degrees and Bob is 45 degrees (the farthest points where they are 15% different than the starting point of 22.5 degrees), well, those points are completely uncorrelated with each other (i.e. 50% different). Ergo, there are no classical datasets which have this simple observed property: 15%+15%=50%.
There's a difference in experiments involving coins and experiments involving light. Does that difference imply nonlocality? I don't think it does.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#24
Jul30-10, 04:48 AM
P: 1,414
JesseM, I didn't mean to imply that you've ever deliberately obfuscated anything. I probably should have phrased my directive as a request to you to please avoid unnecessarily complicating my little 'thought illustration' if at all possible. Apparently that wasn't possible. So, that's that. Anyway, it was just meant to illustrate a couple of things. Which I'll restate, but first the setup again:

The setup is an ideal optical Bell test setup where an ideal source is emitting pairs of counter-propagating photons, entangled in polarization, at a certain rate. There are two ideal photon detectors, A and B, placed opposite each other and equidistant from the emitter, registering detections at certain, identical, rates. Between the emitter and detectors are placed two polarizers, a and b. The detection rate at A with polarizer, a, in place is 1/2 the detection rate at A without polarizer, a, in place. The detection rate at A is invariant wrt rotations of the polarizer, a. The same holds for the B side. The rate of coincidental detection is .5cos^2 |a-b| .

Now, if eg. polarizer, a, is taken from the A side and transferred to the B side, then the rate of coincidental detection will still be .5cos^2 |a-b| . (The coincidence rate can't be greater than the maximum B side detection rate.)

I think that this idealization illustrates the following:

(1) It isn't just a 'coincidence', having nothing to do with optics, that the coincidence rate in the original setup is the same as the coincidence rate in the altered setup.
(2) There's clearly no need for 'nonlocal communication' in the altered setup (with a photon polariscope on the B side). So, I don't think we need nonlocality to understand the correlations in the original setup. (As if assuming 'nonlocality' is any sort of understanding anyway).
(3) Most importantly wrt the OP of this thread, either the altered setup is not fundamentally equivalent to the original setup, or Herbert and Bell are requiring light to behave in a way that contradicts at least two centuries of observational data (or, they're saying that Malus Law, as it applies to quantum polariscopic setups, is, per se, implying nonlocality).

Of course, one could maintain that the two setups are so different that in the original one (an idealization of the archetypal optical Bell test setup) with a polarizer on each side, some unknown field (or whatever) has been conjured from the depths of reality to enable the counter-propagating photons (or whatever) to communicate instantaneously (or, conveniently, as faster than light speed as the setup requires). But I find it difficult to imagine how the mere placement of a polarizer could have such, er, power, and think that a more plausible hypothesis is that people who think that violations of BI's (such as Herbert's 'simplest' BI) imply nonlocality have simply made a logical error somewhere along the line.

-----------------------

Wrt what most physicists would say, it's an open empirical question. My own sampling of the physics community has lead me to believe that most physicists would say that nature is evolving according to underlying dynamical principles in accordance with the principle of local action. But of course it wasn't a large sample, and the responses were maybe not representative of the responses one might get from thousands of physicists across all the sub-fields in physics. Some specialties might be more predisposed to liking certain ideas or thinking in certain terms (eg., that nature is local -- or nonlocal) than others.

-----------------------

I'm going to resist the temptation to reply to these most recent Bell threads for as long as it takes for me to catch up on my reading. I thank you, JesseM, for your detailed and sincere replies, and you and DrC and billschnieder and JenniT and my_wan and RUTA and several others for motivating me to learn more. I certainly agree that one must avoid cognitive bias and the dreaded D-K syndrome.

Maybe nature is nonlocal, or there are fields or media where disturbances propagate ftl. Who knows. These are open questions as far as I'm concerned. All I can say to those who think that Bell has definitively proved that nature is nonlocal is that I currently disagree with them, and, anyway, it doesn't seem to matter very much to physical science whether nature is fundamentally local or nonlocal -- because these aren't questions that can be answered scientifically.

To the OP, I think that Herbert's simplest Bell inequality is a valid Bell inequality, and that Herbert's interpretation of the physical meaning of its violation is not valid. But that's just my current opinion, and although that opinion is reinforced by a number of professional physicists (albeit probably not the majority of professional physicists), it might well change as my understanding of everything involved increases.

What I currently understand is the categorical logic involved in BIs, and the arithmetization thereof. What I don't currently understand is what this has to do with fundamental reality. Or, to phrase it differently, I don't understand why apparently many physicists think that BI violations imply anything about fundamental reality.

And, JesseM, here's a smiley for you. I was reading a recent reply of yours to RUTA in another thread. What you're saying there makes very good sense to me. That is, I agree with it. What you're saying in all of your replies, including those in this thread, makes sense to me. And, I think all your responses are well thought out and sincere. So, it's very difficult to disagree with you. However, I just don't happen to think, currently, that all of your statements, particularly pertaining to Bell, are necessarily correct. So, give me some time to read and think about this stuff and I'll get back to you -- and thanks again.

In the meantime, for interested readers, here are a couple of papers that you might agree are related to the Hess et al papers linked to correctly by JesseM in post #16.

Bell's inequalities I: An explanation for their experimental violation
Journal ref: Optics Communications 170 (1999) 55-60
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0101/0101087.pdf

Bell's inequalities II: logical loophole in their interpretation
Journal ref: Optics Communications 170 (1999) 61-66
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0101/0101094.pdf
DevilsAvocado
DevilsAvocado is offline
#25
Jul30-10, 06:44 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,642
Quote Quote by Loren Booda View Post
Paraphrased from Nick Herbert's book Quantum Reality, the following (borrowed from the OP's http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html) is the best (simplest) account I have found to date for the Bell inequality (SPOT stands for Single Photon Orientation Tester):

...

Just beautiful.
Yes, it’s very beautiful.

I don’t wanna be a "party pooper"... but somehow I wonder if this is really the whole truth...
[Nick Herbert] What happened was that I ended up producing one of the simplest proofs of Nature's necessary deep non-locality.
...because John Bell himself used exactly the same example in a lecture in 1990...
N(+30, -30) ≤ N(+30, 0) + N(0, -30)
And this version is even shorter!
DevilsAvocado
DevilsAvocado is offline
#26
Jul30-10, 07:54 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,642
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Wrt what most physicists would say, it's an open empirical question. My own sampling of the physics community has lead me to believe that most physicists would say that nature is evolving according to underlying dynamical principles in accordance with the principle of local action. But of course it wasn't a large sample, and the responses were maybe not representative of the responses one might get from thousands of physicists across all the sub-fields in physics. Some specialties might be more predisposed to liking certain ideas or thinking in certain terms (eg., that nature is local -- or nonlocal) than others.
I dont think your 'sample' is representative:
Quote Quote by RUTA View Post
When I first entered the foundations community (1994), there were still a few conference presentations arguing that the statistical and/or experimental analyses of EPR-Bell experiments were flawed. Such talks have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview. There is a proper subset who believe this change will be related to the unification of QM and GR :-)
RUTA is a working PhD Professor of Physics.

Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I'm going to resist the temptation to reply to these most recent Bell threads for as long as it takes for me to catch up on my reading.
...
Maybe nature is nonlocal
ThomasT, I think its just great that you have found the word "Maybe"! Im not a scientist, but I would guess that the M-word is the most useful of all in science!!

Happy reading, and remember no one is saying that its proved beyond any doubt that the world is nonlocal. We are just saying that Local Realism (LR) cannot reproduce all the predictions of QM and the results of all performed EPR-Bell experiments so far.

A little 'advice' on subjects to penetrate, while youre reading, is the correlation on the relative angle between Alice & Bob:

Angle	Alice	Bob
------------------------
0	100%	100%
22.5	85%	85%
45	50%	50%
67.5	15%	15%
90	0%	0%
  • And dont forget: Alice & Bob is outside each others lightcone when the final relative angle is set.

  • And dont forget: We will not get this statistics on not entangled photons.

  • And dont forget: This statistics would also be a fact if someone will be able to do EPR-Bell experiments with electrons instead of photons Bell's Theorem is not restricted to optics.
Take care!
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#27
Jul30-10, 09:35 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado
I dont think your 'sample' is representative.
I have to agree. It was a sample of professional physicists, abeit none in the foundations field. So, pretty much not familiar with Bell stuff, and, as experimentalists, probably biased toward a 'local' worldview.

Quote Quote by RUTA
When I first entered the foundations community (1994), there were still a few conference presentations arguing that the statistical and/or experimental analyses of EPR-Bell experiments were flawed. Such talks have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview. There is a proper subset who believe this change will be related to the unification of QM and GR :-)
Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado
RUTA is a working PhD Professor of Physics.
The argument isn't that the experiments or the data analyses are flawed. So, I agree with RUTA on this. The argument is that the logic involved in assuming that violations of BIs allow inferences about fundamental reality is flawed. And so I don't agree with RUTA that the results of Bell tests require a significant change in our worldview.

Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado
ThomasT, I think its just great that you have found the word "Maybe"! Im not a scientist, but I would guess that the M-word is the most useful of all in science!!
You don't have to be a professional scientist to be a scientist. I think you have a scientific mind. It's all in how you approach learning the truth of things. And, I agree that the willingness to say "maybe", as well as "I don't know" and "I don't understand" are very important prerequisites to learning.

But I like ruffling a few feathers now and then.

Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado
Happy reading, and remember no one is saying that its proved beyond any doubt that the world is nonlocal. We are just saying that Local Realism (LR) cannot reproduce all the predictions of QM and the results of all performed EPR-Bell experiments so far.
Well, then we pretty much agree.

Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado
A little 'advice' on subjects to penetrate, while youre reading, is the correlation on the relative angle between Alice & Bob:

Code:

Angle Alice Bob
------------------------
0 100% 100%
22.5 85% 85%
45 50% 50%
67.5 15% 15%
90 0% 0%

* And dont forget: Alice & Bob is outside each others lightcone when the final relative angle is set.
The loophole stuff is a red herring. The experiments are fine. It's all about the logic. The usual interpretation is a false dichotomy. But, that's just my current opinion, and might well be wrong. (I'm feeling very intellectually humble today for some reason. There will be no swindlin' today. Of course, tomorrow's another day.)

Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado
* And dont forget: We will not get this statistics on not entangled photons.
Of course. That's how the presence of entanglement is inferred -- from the statistical results.

Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado
* And dont forget: This statistics would also be a fact if someone will be able to do EPR-Bell experiments with electrons instead of photons Bell's Theorem is not restricted to optics.
I'll definitely keep that in mind.

And this really is my last post on this stuff for a while (I didn't feel like reading this morning).
DevilsAvocado
DevilsAvocado is offline
#28
Jul30-10, 10:34 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,642
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I have to agree.
Great!
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
So, I agree with RUTA on this.
Fantastic!
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think you have a scientific mind.
Thanks very much!
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
But I like ruffling a few feathers now and then.
This is very reassuring... I thought you were ill there for a while...? (joke! )

(... Im sharpening my teeth ... )
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Well, then we pretty much agree.
Cool!
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
The loophole stuff is a red herring.
Agree.
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I'll definitely keep that in mind.
Very good, it will bring benefits.
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
And this really is my last post on this stuff for a while
See ya later, Terminator!
DrChinese
DrChinese is offline
#29
Jul30-10, 11:32 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,147
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Of course. That's how the presence of entanglement is inferred -- from the statistical results.
Entangled particles exist in a superposition of states. Classical particles do not exist in a superposition of states, they are in a single state. Classical of course meaning local realistic. So it seems pretty straightforward to me that finding particle pairs that have superposition statistics (i.e. Bell states) is an absolute counterexample to classical ideas. If, in fact, the particles were in mixed (i.e. classical) states, then you would get different statistics (Product state).

Again, the point is that entanglement (as a state) is incompatible with local realism.
DevilsAvocado
DevilsAvocado is offline
#30
Jul30-10, 01:49 PM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,642
DrC, I’m looking for the stuff on "remote entanglement" (particles that never was in contact), but I can’t find it on PF?
DrChinese
DrChinese is offline
#31
Jul30-10, 03:46 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
DrChinese's Avatar
P: 5,147
Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado View Post
DrC, Im looking for the stuff on "remote entanglement" (particles that never was in contact), but I cant find it on PF?
There are a batch of related ones from some of the top teams. Search on entanglement swapping, but here are a few:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609135

We report for the first time in an ancilla-free process a non-local entanglement between two single photons which do not meet. For our experiment we derive a simple and efficient method to entangle two single photons using post-selection technology. The photons are guided into an interferometer setup without the need for ancilla photons for projection into the Bell-states. After passing the output ports, the photons are analyzed using a bell state analyzer on each side. The experimental data clearly shows a non-local interaction between these photons, surpassing the limit set by the CHSH-inequality with an S-value of 2.54 and 24 standard deviations.


http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3991

Entanglement swapping allows to establish entanglement between independent particles that never interacted nor share any common past. This feature makes it an integral constituent of quantum repeaters. Here, we demonstrate entanglement swapping with time-synchronized independent sources with a fidelity high enough to violate a Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality by more than four standard deviations. The fact that both entangled pairs are created by fully independent, only electronically connected sources ensures that this technique is suitable for future long-distance quantum communication experiments as well as for novel tests on the foundations of quantum physics.


http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409093

We report the first experimental realization of entanglement swapping over large distances in optical fibers. Two photons separated by more than two km of optical fibers are entangled, although they never directly interacted. We use two pairs of time-bin entangled qubits created in spatially separated sources and carried by photons at telecommunication wavelengths. A partial Bell state measurement is performed with one photon from each pair which projects the two remaining photons, formerly independent onto an entangled state. A visibility high enough to violate a Bell inequality is reported, after both photons have each travelled through 1.1 km of optical fiber.


http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1314

Quantum systems that have never interacted can become nonlocally correlated through a process called entanglement swapping. To characterize nonlocality in this context, we introduce local models where quantum systems that are initially uncorrelated are described by uncorrelated local variables. While a pair of maximally entangled qubits prepared in the usual way (i.e., emitted from a common source) requires a visibility close to 70% to violate a Bell inequality, we show that an entangled pair generated through entanglement swapping will already violate a Bell inequality for visibilities as low as 50% under our assumption.


---------------------------------

Although these experiments don't show it, you can entangle photons after they are detected... and you can even entangled photons that never existed at the same time.
DevilsAvocado
DevilsAvocado is offline
#32
Jul30-10, 03:53 PM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,642
Quote Quote by DrChinese View Post
There are a batch of related ones from some of the top teams. Search on entanglement swapping, but here are a few:
BIG Thanks!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Bell's Theorem Advanced Physics Homework 2
Simple Proof of Weierstass Approximation Theorem? Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Bell's Theorem Quantum Physics 0
Please explain use of Heine in proof of simple theorem Introductory Physics Homework 3
Bell's theorem General Physics 27